Sold a car by RIGHT CAR with no MOT - where do I stand?

Sgt_Pepper_2

hartcjhart wrote: »

ERRMMM excuse me,BUT I have never 'followed you' about,nor harrased you or have I ever PMd you
perhaps you would like to wind your neck in and apologise,becaus it could be read that you were reffering to me

Calm down we all know he's on about trebor.

Joe_Horner

hartcjhart wrote: »

perhaps you would like to wind your neck in and apologise,becaus it could be read that you were reffering to me

What on earth has he got to apologise for?

funkycoldribena wrote: »

Whilst I totally agree with what you're saying,doesnt what you've written in your signature seem a tad hypocritical??

fivetide wrote: »

I had to ask the MSE Forum team to stop him following me about and harassing me in PMs then he came back and tried again despite the fact he's on the ignore list.

5t.

fivetide's_signature wrote:

Does anybody have a life that Trebor16 could borrow? That way he might stop stalking me and making himself look like an idiot.

Unless you're also Trebor16 how exactly could that be seen as referring to you????

hartcjhart

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Calm down we all know he's on about trebor.

Do we, after this post

fivetideQuote:
Originally Posted by hartcjhart
merely putting the point over that the OP is stupid for not checking the MOT was as stated


Again, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing at all. I'm sure that's in the forum rules somewhere.

Ok the OP made a mistake. It happens. They are asking for advice not abuse.


then this

funkycoldribenaQuote:
Originally Posted by fivetide
Again, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say nothing at all. I'm sure that's in the forum rules somewhere.

Ok the OP made a mistake. It happens. They are asking for advice not abuse.

5t.

Whilst I totally agree with what you're saying,doesnt what you've written in your signature seem a tad hypocritical??

then this

fivetideQuote:
Originally Posted by funkycoldribena
Whilst I totally agree with what you're saying,doesnt what you've written in your signature seem a tad hypocritical??

I had to ask the MSE Forum team to stop him following me about and harassing me in PMs then he came back and tried again despite the fact he's on the ignore list.

5t.

looks like he is refffering to me

Joe_Horner

Step away from the paranoia!!! FC commented about Five's signature and Five explained why he has that.

Pretty clear unless you're looking for personal attacks where there aren;t any!

Tilt

It is illegal for a dealer to sell a car which is unroadworthy. If it is sold without a valid MOT, it is unroadworthy.

getmore4less

Tilt wrote: »

It is illegal for a dealer to sell a car which is unroadworthy. If it is sold without a valid MOT, it is unroadworthy.

this one had a valid MOT

Joe_Horner

getmore4less wrote: »

this one had a valid MOT

And, by the sound of it, passed a new one without problems when the problem was noticed 5 months later. Which suggests that it was roadworthy, even if the MOT was short, at the time of sale.

It's important to remember that the prohibition (which, btw, says even private sellers can't sell unroadworthy stuff) is against selling unroadworthy, not "un-road-legal" (ie: without an MOT). I can't imagine why they'd want to, but a dealer could legitimately sell a car without MOT provided it was clearly capable of passing a test with no repairs at the time.

This really does sound like a case where honest mistakes were made all round (we are all human, after all) but that those involved have accepted that and worked to rectify them quickly and fairly once they were spotted.

Not every business is out to screw people over, and it's always good to see when one does the responsible thing after making a mistake like this one seems to have done

George_Michael

Tilt wrote: »

It is illegal for a dealer to sell a car which is unroadworthy. If it is sold without a valid MOT, it is unroadworthy.

Not having an MOT does not automatically mean that the vehicle in question is unroadworthy.
If this was the case, why would you legally be allowed to take an unroadworthy vehicle onto the road when driving to & from a prebooked MOT appointment?

All that not having a valid MOT means is that taking that vehicle onto the road is normally illegal.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 does not give a definition of what is "unroadworthy", but instead makes reference to the following areas that, if not satisfactory, may lead to a vehicle being unroadworthy:-

• steering and steering gear,
• brakes and braking systems,
• tyres,
• exhaust systems,
• seatbelts and seatbelt anchorages,
• general condition (corrosion, suspension etc).

http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/BusinessRegeneration/TradingStandards/FairplayCharter/UnroadworthyMisdescribedCars.htm

Tilt

George_Michael wrote: »

Not having an MOT does not automatically mean that the vehicle in question is unroadworthy.
If this was the case, why would you legally be allowed to take an unroadworthy vehicle onto the road when driving to & from a prebooked MOT appointment?

All that not having a valid MOT means is that taking that vehicle onto the road is normally illegal.


http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/BusinessRegeneration/TradingStandards/FairplayCharter/UnroadworthyMisdescribedCars.htm

So it's technically unroadworthy then. I.e. cannot be driven in accordance with the RTA.

Joe_Horner

No, roadworthiness refers to whether or not it meets the Construction and Use requirements, not RTA ones.

If "not meeting RTA requirements" made a car automatically unroadworthy then that would include all cars without tax and insurance because the RTA says you must have them to drive legally. In which case, the prohibition on selling unroadworthy vehicles would make it illegal to sell them without either of those as well.

The MOT is simply an administrative way to try and ensure that roadworthiness requirements are met, which is why it's entirely possible (and quite common) to be charged with having no MOT but NOT also charged with any roadworthiness offences if the car is up to MOT standard at the time.